As Australia’s prisons evade scrutiny, conditions inside are getting worse

The lawyer for the accused Bondi Beach gunman, Naveed Akram, commented in court that his client was subject to “very onerous conditions” at Goulburn’s supermax prison. Goulburn Correctional Complex, in New South Wales, houses the country’s highest security prison.

At the High Risk Management Correctional Centre, prisoners endure “very strict daily regimes and intense scrutiny by staff”, according to a review by the NSW Ombudsman. The ombudsman concluded there is “no doubt” the unit fails to provide “a therapeutic environment for these inmates”.

Goulburn’s supermax facility is set aside for the most serious offenders. It’s overwhelmingly populated with those who are convicted or accused of terrorism offences. They are categorised as requiring the “top level of security classifications”.

Given the gravity of the crimes of which Akram is accused, it makes sense he would be kept in such a facility. His case is among the worst of the worst.

But it’s the type of exception that normalises harsh prison conditions across the country. The solitary confinement, intensive surveillance and long periods of lockdown that Akram will experience even while he awaits court proceedings are becoming increasingly common, not just for accused mass murderers but for many non-violent prisoners too.

What are the rules for prisons?

The minimum standards for Australian prisons are set out in the 2025 Guiding Principles for Corrections. They promote safe practices in relation to health and wellbeing, rehabilitation and reintegration, and respectful interactions, while also maintaining prison security. They are not legally enforceable.

Inspectors of Custodial Services across the country seek to uphold minimum standards, ensure accountability and prevent breaches.

But their main role is systemic reviews, not investigating individual complaints. As with ombudsman reports, the recommendations of inspectors are non-binding.

Toothless monitoring and oversight bodies risk the Australian prison system becoming a law unto itself.

What about international law?

There are also international minimum standards set out in documents such as the United Nations Mandela Rules.

The Mandela Rules say prisoners should be treated with respect and dignity. They say prisoners should not be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment.

Breaches of standards include prolonged isolation, overcrowding and excessive strip searches.

But these rules are also non-binding.

How do Australia’s prisons fare?

The unprecedented Australian prison population, which stands at almost 47,000, makes overcrowding and lockdowns more likely, and effective enforcement elusive.

The Productivity Commission has reported several jurisdictions where prison populations are either nearing or exceeding the facility’s capacity.

In New South Wales, minimum standards for children and adults in detention have largely evaded scrutiny for years.

In 2021–22, the NSW Ombudsman received 147 reports of young people held in segregation for more than 24 hours. It was a 46% increase from the previous year.

In 2023–24, there were 878 notifications of young people in segregation.

In addition, the NSW Ombudsman found in 2022 that officers were conducting fully-naked strip searches on young people in youth detention.

In adults prisons, segregation rates are not consistently recorded. But the NSW Ombudsman found in 2024 that of its sample of prisoners who were penalised with cell confinement, about three quarters were classed as particularly vulnerable, including 42% who were Aboriginal.

First Nations people most at risk

A further breach is systemic discrimination on the grounds of race.

First Nations people account for 37% of people in prison in Australia. But there are inadequate levels of Indigenous staffing. There are also very few cultural therapeutic programs and health and wellbeing services.

In 2025, the NSW inspector of custodial services expressed deep concern about the number of Aboriginal deaths in custody in the state. The inspector’s report highlighted “poor conditions in many correctional centres caused by a combination of understaffing, excessive lockdowns, poor staff culture, aged infrastructure, and high remand numbers”.

Avoiding scrutiny

Australia is also a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. The protocol requires “effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture”.

Accordingly, Australia must also establish and facilitate “a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture”. These inspections are carried out unannounced in order to identify torture risks without state interference or window dressing.

Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory have enacted laws that align with the treaty.

But NSW, Victoria and Queensland, which have the highest prison populations, have consistently failed to implement the minimum standards outlined in the protocol.

The NSW and Queensland governments refused access to prisons in the first visit to Australia of the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture in 2022.

This is an indictment on these governments’ lack of cooperation, especially given countries across South America, the Middle East and Africa with fewer resources to uphold standards have complied.

The slippery slope

The severe supermax prison conditions Naveed Akram will endure for the foreseeable future may be met with public approval.

However, extreme cases can give rise to a slippery slope of inflicting inhumane conditions on the great majority of people in prison: those on remand, sentenced for non-violent offences and held for breach of justice procedures.

As Nelson Mandela remarked, “no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails”. Looking inside Australian prisons tells a story of prejudice, few protections and lack of transparency and accountability.